Computed tomography-based correction of the body mass index improves malnutrition detection in patients with cirrhosis and ascites

Table 4 Comparison of the clinical characteristics between patients with and without low-body mass index reclassification (actual body weight method vs computed tomography -sensitive corrected method), n (%)/median (Q1, Q3)

Variable	No reclassification (n = 94)	Reclassification (n = 6)	P value
Age, years	52.00 (44.00, 63.00)	52.50 (39.50, 62.50)	0.722
Sex (male/female)	70/24	3/3	0.339
Length of hospital stay, days	11.00 (7.00, 15.00)	11.50 (6.25, 14.50)	0.716
Actual BMI, kg/m2	24.39 (22.77, 26.36)	19.53 (18.82, 20.68)	0.002
CT-corrected BMI, kg/m2	23.71 (21.62, 25.52)	17.84 (17.55, 18.93)	< 0.001
CT-sensitive corrected BMI, kg/m2	23.67 (21.55, 25.52)	17.84 (17.55, 18.10)	< 0.001
AMC, cm	23.54 (22.56, 24.26)	21.23 (20.92, 21.73)	0.025
Albumin, g/L	33.20 (27.75, 39.10)	33.55 (32.00, 34.80)	0.845
Total bilirubin, μmol/L	17.80 (11.82, 30.40)	19.10 (11.62, 121.52)	0.706
INR	1.21 (1.10, 1.41)	1.46 (1.17, 1.66)	0.242
Ascites volume, mL	1437.49 (612.18, 2327.16)	5252.04 (3918.76, 6262.42)	0.001
Liver function grade (A/B/C)	26/52/16	1/3/2	0.621
Severe lower-limb edema	6 (6.4)	3 (50.0)	0.009

Continuous variables are presented as the median (Q1, Q3) and were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Categorical variables are presented as counts or percentages and were compared using Fisher’s exact test. CT: Computed tomography; BMI: Body mass index; INR: International normalized ratio; AMC: Arm muscle circumference.